I was lucky to be given by one of my grandchildren a book published by Penguin Ltd and I noticed on the cover the FSC Logo on a 2011 colour plate soft covered book.

So I Googled Penguin, and read this:

“Making our Books Green with the FSC The FSC Penguin’s biggest impact on the environment comes from our use of paper (though it may surprise you to know that book manufacture only accounts for 2% of world paper use). For a number of years Penguin has sought responsible paper sourcing and in June 2006 we announced that by the end of the year we would print all our monochrome hardback and trade paperback titles on Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified paper. The FSC guarantees that the paper comes from environmentally and socially responsible sources. At this time FSC accreditation is much harder to come by for colour and mass paperback titles, but Penguin is working with the World Wildlife Fund to explore new opportunities. Our progress on this pressing issue will be reported here soon.”

This topic of FSC certification is (still)not what Forestry Tasmania wants to talk about.
Instead we read in todays Examiner Newspaper on line:
Quote: ``If Tasmania does want a timber industry, one of two things needs to occur _ either the verification process is finalised quickly, or the radical environmental groups stop trashing Tasmania’s reputation around the world,’’ Mr Gordon said. end quotehttp://www.examiner.com.au/news/local/news/general/forest-industry-calls-for-swift-verification/2406268.aspx
Lara Giddings, Bryan Green, Will Hodgman, Peter Gutwein and Jeremy Rockliff should put it to Bob Gordon that if he and FT is unable and unwilling to seek the international FSC process to begin as soon as possible, that his time in the top job is over and that anyone in FT’s head-office with the same ‘head in the sand’ attitude will have no longer a public job to attend.
How much more time will be wasted until Hobart is prepared to catch up with positive, broad community and stakeholder consultation?
There is now point in calling for the “verification process to be finalised quickly”.
The whole industry needs a proper change process.
Anything less than the international triple bottom line approach is a waste of time, energy and money.http://www.fsc.org
I go further, the future of forest and landscape management is in complex restoration management.
Our Whole Island Quality should be the focal point and driver of all industries.
More and better employment - a positive attitude all round.
Time will tell…

#2 Yes Mr Volker. You speak of corruption. Democratically elected governments can be corrupted also. By big industry for instance.

Never read about this phenomenon in the course of your studies?

Never come across the terms ‘rent seeker’ or ‘political patronage’ (which is one of my favoutites)?

Some would say the relationship between successive Tasmanian Governments and the Tasmanian Logging industry is a classic example of political patronage in action.

The Tasmanian Government through special legislation enables the state forest resources to be accessed via dirt cheap rates to reward certain businesses, individuals, groups for their electoral support.

What about the term crony capitalism Peter?

You must have come across that one.

This is how Wikipedia describes Crony Capitalism which some experts also say applies to the relationship between the logging industry and successive Tas. govts…....“a term describing a capitalist economy in which success in business depends on close relationships between business people and government officials. It may be exhibited by favoritism in the distribution of legal permits, government grants, special tax breaks, and so forth. Crony capitalism is believed to arise when political cronyism spills over into the business world; self-serving friendships and family ties between businessmen and the government influence the economy and society to the extent that it corrupts public-serving economic and political ideals.

Anyway Mr Volker all those terms relate to corruption. Some would also say that there is no greater example of a ‘democratically elected government’ corrupted than in Tasmania through its relationship with the logging industry.

One more thing. If you hold up democratically elected governments in Tasmania as the best regulator of the logging industry then you must of course support the IGA which is backed by this democratically elected government. Yes?

Posted by pilko on 30/12/11 at 05:53 PM

Well said Pilko #3.
FSC is not perfect the reason that there is an FSC watch website is that until we have a full blown Australian FSC standard we are running under a temporary standard that is easy to skirt around which is why there is also a website called Hancock watch.
Oh and if the logging industry is so good why do they have to set up bogus organisations such as Timber Communities Australia, which is a branch of NAFI that pretends to be a grass roots organisation. Why does the industry need all the lobby groups to bend the ears of governments to their ways. Such as FIAT, TCA, NAFI, TFCA and the Forest and Forest Industries Council.
Why do they need governments to change laws as they did in the Weilangta case.
Why do they donate large sums of money to political parties, not just their favourites but to both the major parties.
Why do they spend vast amounts of money trying to convince the public that the rotten job they are doing that we can all see is sustainable.
Why can’t they get accredited under the FSC as the IGA intends them to.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 30/12/11 at 07:49 PM

Random House Australia to print all new books on FSC certified paper

Random House Australia has announced that from March 2010 all of its Australian books will be printed on paper certified by FSC as part of a wider environmental policy for the publisher including the responsible use of energy, water, materials and space. A company statement said, ‘At Random House Australia we believe that, like all businesses, we need to examine and assess our environmental impact. This belief inspires action and we have conducted an environmental audit to assess the environmental footprint within our offices and warehouse. FSC promotes environmentally responsible, socially beneficial and economically viable management of the world’s forest.’

Posted by john hawkins on 30/12/11 at 08:45 PM

P Volker BSc(Forestry) #2 omitted to mention that he is closely allied to Forestry Tasmania.

I quote his CV,

“Principal Research Scientist, Plantations
Forestry Tasmania

December 2002– December 2008 (6 years 1 month)

Managed a team of 5 scientists and 6 technicians working on research and development in eucalypt plantations. Main topics included breeding and genetics, soils, nutrition, silviculture for solid wood, hydrology and productivity. Undertook consultancy work on introduction of cold tolerant eucalypts into China and solid wood production from eucalypt plantations in Chile.”

He still acts as a Consultant to FT.

I would have thought that it would be in his interest to promote FSC and not denigrate the key to his vanishing world, but then FT cannot get FSC approval so they will not and cannot apply.

Posted by john hawkins on 30/12/11 at 09:04 PM

Good write up Pilko, the only people who don’t know the structure of Forestry Tasmania is in itself decidedly against the interests of its citizens, are its upper echelon individuals whom are diligently extracting their high yet mostly unearned salaries.

This has been proven time and time again, as any business operation or State project that have the green light given them by Dep Prem Bryan Green, is/are bound to be leaching their profits from the State’s Labor ministers preferred and gifted project approvals list and or given an approved entry into the peoples State of Tasmania resources. (Never at all are these resources ever to be conceived as actual government owned resources.)

Our psuedo Integrity Commission is now finally and especially constructed to reinforce this out of order rigid division between the crony recipients and the qualifying yet non-crony recipients!

Posted by William Boeder on 31/12/11 at 12:18 AM

I see that the Forestry apologists are now calling for the scrapping of the IGA.

However, I have not noticed any inclination to hand back the $11.4 Million that they received care of this ‘greenie’ benevolence.

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 31/12/11 at 02:45 AM

Shifting sands (I wonder if Mr Hickey was invited to a meeting with the managing director about media statements?)

Mercury, 23 Dec: Ta Ann general manager Greg Hickey said yesterday the company had no other options and would not seek an alternative supply.

“We are reliant on Forestry Tasmania and we expect them to make the wood available to us,” he said.

Mercury, 30 Dec: Timber processor Ta Ann fears it will be abandoned by overseas customers if the forest peace deal is not settled.

Ta Ann’s Malaysian managing director Dato KH Wong, in Hobart this week to review the company’s Huon Valley and Smithton operation, said the situation was desperate.

Mr Wong hinted that Tasmania could lose the log peeling business, which created about 160 jobs.

A new February target for the Inter Governmental Agreement process, breaching the December 31 deadline, was unacceptable. “Quick action is required. Radical environment groups appear to be using the the delay in the verification process to harm our markets,” he said.

Mr Wong said the process needed to confirm which areas would be reserved, and from where Ta Ann would get its 20-70mm logs, provided by Forestry Tasmania.

Posted by Mark on 31/12/11 at 06:49 AM

70mm logs don’t sound like they come out of a plantation, do they? Not FTs plantations anyway? 70mm logs would be from native forest wouldn’t they? To have a senior ‘manager’ from ta ann lobbying, threatening the tas gov is a dangerous sign. There is hardly a blade of grass that is let live in Malaysia, lest it not be grown by crony capitalism. Tas gov as we know are well inclined in that direction already, they don’t need help from the likes of the worst of the worst in ta ann. Sorry, the Russian mafia may be more entrenched.Is FT going to try to get FSC for felled native timber?
Perhaps FT could try TQM, it might taste better.

Posted by russell on 31/12/11 at 09:55 AM

Nr 9: ...“from where Ta Ann would get its 20-70mm logs provided by Forestry Tasmania”!

What!

I went and measured: 20mm = the length between my small finger tip and the first joint; 70mm = total length of my small finger.

So, to provide this sort of “logs” FT has to flatten entire forests? Or has someone mixed mm up with cm (metric was introduced to Australia half a century ago)?

In both cases, are we talking diameter or circumference? If it’s circumference, which tends to be the measurement used for trees, then the same question stands - flattering entire forests to gain some thin to very thin tree trunks?

Posted by Pensive on 31/12/11 at 10:07 AM

#8. Thats right Barnaby. They are shameless.

Not a word Barnaby because this current generation of loggers have been financially nurtured by state and federal government in an environment of special treatment and favouritism the point where they believe taxpayer handouts are their birthright.

Nurses can go to hell. Rock Lobster fishermen get squat despite their quotas being cut time and again and other Tasmanian businesses are allowed to fail.

Most Tasmanians now recognise the logging industry for the self centred industry it is. Decades of running roughshod over other people and communities has meant that today there is little in the way of community goodwill toward the industry. The loggers fight to maintain access to native forests will be fought by a few politicians but the loggers will struggle to find backers in the community. Years of environmental abuse and contempt for other peoples rights have worn away community support.

Loggers constantly remind us of the large areas of Tasmania which are already protected, as if they are taking some credit for wilderness protection. Yet we know full well that if had been left to the industry and their political benefactors there would be little if any of this state protected from industrial exploitation.

The Tasmanian economy will do just fine with a scaled back reformed forest sector despite the bogus cries of loggers that hospitals, schools etc will suffer because of diminished returns from logging.

The Tasmanian logging industry has a long history of simultaneously bleating about its value to Tasmania’s overall economy whilst begging for and receiving taxpayer handouts. Graeme Wells has exposed the folly of this on TT.

Posted by pilko on 31/12/11 at 10:34 AM

@ 10/11. 70mm logs could certainly come out of FT plantations but 70cm logs won’t. I believe ‘cm’ has been misquoted as ‘mm’ for this discussion. Log size is expressed as diameter, either large end, small end or as a mid-diameter (1/2 the log length). Circumference is never used to describe log size (in Australia at least). In fact the industry uses specially calibrated tapes which allow you to measure around the outside of a log or tree (the circumference) but are scaled to provide the corresponding diameter at the point of measurement.

Posted by mjf on 31/12/11 at 12:05 PM

#13. In fact the industry uses specially calibrated tapes which allow you to measure around the outside of a log or tree (the circumference) but are scaled to provide the corresponding diameter at the point of measurement…..mjf

It’s a pity the measurements are scaled to diameter, rather than value!

However, I do admit that that would be a foreign concept for Forestry, and they would prefer it scaled to ‘Loss’!

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 31/12/11 at 05:09 PM

Pillo #3 if Wikipedia is the best you can do for facts, then more the pity for you. I made a simple statement, you can read into it what you like, which you obviously have.

Hawkins #6, you forgot to mention my other qualifications. By the way I am not a consultant to FT, I am still employed there. What’s more I ‘m proud to be a member of their staff. I have the utmost confidence in the honesty, integrity and professional conduct of the people who I work with.

As National President of the Institute of Foresters of Australia I initiated IFA membership of the social chamber of FSC Australia. I have nothing against certification. The point I make is that even FSC is subject o graft and corruption, it’s by no means perfect. so why are we constantly regained with messages that would have us believe FSC is the answer to your perception of problems of forest governance and practice?

Posted by Dr Peter Volker on 31/12/11 at 10:10 PM

Dr Peter Volker 15. If “even FSC is subject to graft and corruption” then you would have to assume Forestry Tasmania is also subject to it.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 01/01/12 at 07:03 AM

#15,What’s more I‘m proud to be a member of their staff. I have the utmost confidence in the honesty, integrity and professional conduct of the people who I work with. ... Dr Volker

That may be true, but if the overall concept is wrong, then their integrity and devotion to it counts for very little. For instance, there are many hundreds of regions in the world with devotees who are honest, have integrity, etc. They also believe that their way is the only way and a belief in their own honesty is unquestionable. However, they cannot all be right, but it is quite conceivable that they could ALL be wrong!

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 01/01/12 at 07:25 AM

Can someone please tell me how long it takes for an average eucalypt tree to grow to a diameter of 70 cms and is that the largest size of log that can be handled by a peeler lathe?

From recent photographs published of billets inside Ta Ann’s factory, I would suggest that some of these exceed 70cms diameter by a considerable amount. In fact, there appeared to be nothing in the 30cms range at all.

A little light on the subject, please?

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 01/01/12 at 07:43 AM

Yes Peter Volker those of us who don’t feel the need to follow our names with all the letters of the alphabet aren’t above using wikipedia to source the definition of words and phrases.

Peter Volker if you think using wikipedia to obtain the definition of words and phrases is pitiful then please demonstrate how the wikipedia definition of crony capitalism i provided is in incorrect.

Which online dictionary would you have had me use?

I doubt that you read the definition thoroughly.

If you can prove that the definition is worthless as your comment infers then do so.

Posted by Pilko on 01/01/12 at 09:03 AM

Dr Volker would you admit that FSC has played a part around the world in restraining the worst excesses of your industry however corrupt you personally see that organisation to be?

As National President of the Institute of Foresters of Australia and an employee of Forestry Tasmania would you be of the opinion that FSC could play a part in restraining the worst excesses of the Tasmanian forestry industry?

Further would you reccomend to FT using your position as National President of the Institute of Foresters and an employee that FT mends its ways over the clearfelling of Native Forest for wood chips and their replacement with monoculture Nitens plantations with the aim of gaining FSC certification and future sales?

Or do you think that the FSC organisation is sufficiently corrupt that membership can be bought by FT so that this end could be achieved by purchase rather than action?

Your thoughts as someone in a position of considerable influence who is so close to the problem would oblige.

Posted by john hawkins on 01/01/12 at 09:23 AM

I would have thought that part of the role of looking after Tasmania’s forests involved having some control over the eventual products created from these forests. Perhaps that is naive.

When such a high percentage of our forests is converted into greenhouse gases through being turned into woodchips for paper production, and a relatively small percentage into durable timber products, retaining most of their carbon, it appears to me that some sort of regulatory control is in order.

The question of how and from where the trees are harvested is obviously a crucial one, but for the sake of the planet’s future, so is the question of what happens to them in the medium to long term.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 01/01/12 at 11:15 AM

Dr Volker,

As the Head of the Institute of Foresters of Australia this article suggests that when dealing with its peers the Institute may not have been entirely Kosher.

Your Institute ranks its Journal in percentile A, Vanclay suggests B, which is at least better than the residue C.

In preparation for the Australian government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF; Gale et al., 2005; DEST, 2007), professional bodies in Australia were asked to identify and rank relevant journals within their discipline into four prestige bands, based on journal quality.

Participants were asked to allocate journals to one of four classes, representing the top 5 percentile (A1), the 80-95 percentile (A), the 50-80 percentile (B), and the residue (C).

The classification offered by the Institute of Foresters of Australia (pers comm., 21 November 2007) implied a ranking substantially different to the JIF, even though the 2005 JIF data were available to members to assist them in their classification. The wide range of JIFs within an assigned band was noteworthy, as was the disagreement regarding the top journal. This study attempts to shed some light on this discrepancy…..

The Institute of Foresters of Australia publishes one of the journals under consideration, Australian Forestry. Three of the four experts placed Australian Forestry in the top 15% of journals, whereas this study suggests that it is near the 76 percentile, suggesting some parochial bias by the experts.”

Posted by john hawkins on 01/01/12 at 01:23 PM

Some comments: Most of the major publishers seem to be adopting the FSC standard. I am now also seeing it on packaging materials. Despite FT’s apparent phobia about it (and we can easily guess why that is), it will become increasingly difficult for them to try to sail under the banner of the various oh-so-credible industry/government accreditation schemes. Ask Gunns.

Wikipedia is vastly improved over what it was years ago. It is quite useful for basic definitions and start-off references. Its definition of ‘crony capitalism’ is spot on. In my view, there is no doubt whatsoever that it describes Tasmania. In fact, I expect dictionaries of the future to list the word ‘tasmania’ as a synonym, as in ‘Many Third-World nations are characterized by tasmaniac systems of governance’.

The 28 December Australian contains an article on Japanese whaling. The parallels with Tasmanian logging are remarkable (without it unemployment will rise; we have always done it - it’s our heritage; communities depend on it and will die if the world forces us to stop; without massive government subsidies this locally critical industry will die; etc. etc.).

I now think of Tasmanian forestry, at least FT style, as arboreal whaling.

Posted by RJ Peak on 01/01/12 at 03:25 PM

RJ Peak. I agree with everything you have said in your comment. You are ‘spot-on’.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 01/01/12 at 06:57 PM

FSC is vague motherhood greenwashing. The only clause that considers any possible existence of biodiversity is Clause 6.2 ‘Safeguards shall exist which protect rare, threatened and endangered species and their habitats (e.g., nesting and feeding areas)’.

FT has safeguards, it’s called locked gates!

Posted by Tigerquoll on 01/01/12 at 08:30 PM

@ 14. Silly comments and not the least bit constructive. I could provide accurate answers for queries @ 18 but why would I bother ?

Posted by mjf on 01/01/12 at 09:11 PM

I myself question how this industry here in Tasmania,(per Tasmania’s Gunns Ltd and of Forestry Tasmania,) in that they have become so notorious for their false advices, their questionable pronouncements and by their failing to illustrate in any way to the people in Tasmania, an example of their supposed industry integrity?

Another depiction of how plausible are the given facts and the veracity of each of the various issued statements, including whatever might be provided in locally published media articles, (as would be issued by those forestry industry employees specifically hired to be forest industry media specialist people, or spokes-persons) of this heavily cloaked-over Tasmanian forestry industry,) which we all know of its beguiling operations, are constantly and effectively protected, or perhaps even strictly prohibited from any open available publication and distribution, by this State government.

So why is this Tasmanian forestry industry activity so desperately protected from publication in any of the many generally available respected industry journals?

Answer: the information given by many forestry operators, “especially provided for the ranking” of forest industry journals in Australia, (that is if we are to use the ideals practices and pursuits of Gunns Ltd and Forestry Tasmania as a measuring unit,) could only be established through some form of calculated guess work, or that it be a covert purchasable item, thus so purchased in order to provide a specific standard or status of integrity, that certainly is not in any way apparent to the people of this State.

Posted by William Boeder on 01/01/12 at 11:52 PM

There is little doubt that FSC scruples fall well short of perfection in many respects.

It happily admitted TCA into its Social Chamber of members, despite it being a particularly blatant example of an Astroturf organisation, and had a highly placed official avidly involved in a Roundtable/IGA charade seemingly scripted by the logging industry.

But FSC does seem to have at least a vestigial resistance to the most feral impulses of a quasi-hoodlum logging industry which has infiltrated a degenerate Tasmanian government. They need to be closely watched.

John Hayward

Posted by john hayward on 02/01/12 at 06:30 AM

Nr 26, why should you bother? Because those of us who are seriously discussing Tasmanian forestry philosophies and practices, which on this thread is +- the case, like to learn more from people who can provide accurate answers. It all helps to make informed judgements. So please provide your answers here. I for one am still hoping to learn something that makes me relax and think that Tasmanian forestry is in good hands. Wouldn’t that be boosting our well-being!

Posted by Pensive on 02/01/12 at 06:47 AM

I could provide accurate answers for queries @ 18 but why would I bother ? mjf

Because you know damned well the answers would be inconvenient for you!

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 02/01/12 at 07:54 AM

Sir

The only sensible answer is a ” Royal Commission into Forestry ” .

Only then will Tasmanians understand the malpractice that has taken place at a Federal and State level.

Federal Labor and Federal Liberals and State Labor have all been complicit.

Because of its importance only an interstate Judge should head the Royal Commission with wide powers.

My recommendation would be eminent retired Victorian Judge Frank Vincent who did his early schooling at St.Patricks College Launceston.

One only has to read Judith Adjani,s book Forest Wars.

All your contributors should be calling for a Royal Commission.

In particular Dorset Council and its Legislative Council member Tania Rattray should be calling for a Royal Commission , because of the economic damage done to the Dorset Municipality.
Bank Managers put the shutters up when you talk about housing in Scottsdale.

Premier Giddings must understand that politicians must accept responsibility for past poor policy , that has resulted in todays detrimental situation.
Gordon should be stood down whilst the commission is in operation.
{ The late Bruce Grffiths fomer General Manager Launceston General Hospital was stood down , whilst Judge Green held a Judicial Enquiry } into his management of the hospital

Little wonder Gordon head of Forestry and Lestrange from Gunns are at logger heads.,and his betrayal of Gunns by selling to Ta -An at a price lower than Gunns.{refer Booth enquiry }

Posted by Brian P.Khan on 02/01/12 at 02:27 PM

#31 Brian you know as well as i do we can for a royal commission until we are blue in the face and it will not happen. Infact Brian i doubt that even the current greens would instigate a Royal Commission into forestry were they in Majority.

As for Tania Rattray. She is part of the problem. Rattray deliberately misled me and a number of others who lobbied here during the MLC’s decision on the state pulp mill permits in 2007.

Rattray told myself and many others she hadnt made up her mind when the truth is as a part of the TCA machinery she was only ever going to vote one way.

Rattray has since shown herself to be no different that any of the other logging industry mouthpieces down there in cowards castle.

Imagine the furore if it had been shown that one of the MLC’s had been an active member of the Wilderness Society (actively anti pulp mill at the time), TAP or some other anti-pulp mill group?

All respect as far i am concerned for that particular MLC has long gone.

Posted by Pilko on 02/01/12 at 07:41 PM

@29. Very well, here are the numbers as you ask so politely.

Re the age question, anything from 40 to 60 years in wet eucalypt regenerating forest. There is a natural age range involved here as all trees don’t grow evenly regardless of how homogenous a site appears to look. Dry eucalypt forest will take much longer and will be in the order of 90 years and greater. I have however measured some small E nitens plantations where the trees were > 70cm DBH (diameter at breast height) but tree age was just 25 years. These examples are quite rare of course and only involved a few hectares planted on exceptionally fertile sites on dairy farms.

The maximum size of logs that can be rotary peeled depends. On a global scale rotary peelers exist to accommodate 150 cm + logs. This is not the case however with Ta Ann’s Tasmanian facilities. I believe these peelers can physically fit up to an 80cm log but with some difficulty. This is why they set a maximum diameter of 70cm knowing that occasionally a slightly larger log will turn up but they will still be able to physically process it. This is standard practice for any timber processing site whereby they do not set the log specifications at the absolute maximum of the equipment but allow for a small tolerance in delivered log size. Also setting the maximum log size is economically driven, based on efficient production, timely mill throughput, minimising log stockpile time and associated delivery scheduling. This is all considered at the design stage and certainly determines what size gear is purchased for the advised resource available.

Posted by mjf on 02/01/12 at 10:04 PM

Re: # 39 What happens to the larger sized logs of over 70cm during felling where the whole site is cleared?
Are these split to be sent to the chipper along with the rest of the timber, to account for the 95% of all the timber on site reduced to pulpwood.

Posted by J A Stevenson on 03/01/12 at 08:36 AM

Hello everyone, contributors and readers of tasmaniantimes.com -
Happy 2012 - may this year provide real progress in assisting each other for an even better Tasmania.
We (my Family of 3 generation in size, together with good friends from Tassie, Victoria, the Northern Territory and Germany) filled two tables at ‘The Taste’ on New Years Eve.
We noticed that the brand new Tables and Benches looked identical to the Festzelt furniture at the Oktoberfest in Stuttgart and Munich and the many other free Summer Festivals in Germany. The timber is Spruce (Picea abies), the tables are well designed and should last many events of this kind.
Fine foods from Tasmania’s Huon Region and Bruny Island, refreshing Ciders & Beers from the Derwent Valley, the white, red and sparkling Wines from the West Tamar made the event a very good time out.
It was a great start and most of us spend New Years Day on the Tasman Peninsula as tourists and we spend considerable for more fine local produce in that part of the Island. We had already pre-booked our 7 Hotel rooms for two nights in Hobart in July, just to make sure we could have a all round happy time.
Our multinational group has spent hard earned money in appreciation for quality.
Most of our guests will stay here for another week.
This brings me to the topic of the debate above.

Making quality count in forestry -
I do appreciate that some of the above commentators sincerely question if and how FSC could become the basis process to bring about TQM = Total Quality Management in Tasmania.
In short, the FSC process can become as good as the companies, organisations, community members and all involved (people) want to make it, or as poor as the stakeholders allow it to be.
Responsible forest management is about intergenerational commitment and sustainability.
To quote from the FSC International website:
The FSC Principles and Criteria (P&C) describe how the forests have to be managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations. They include managerial aspects as well as environmental and social requirements. FSC rules are the strictest and FSC’s social and environmental requirements the highest.
The FSC P&C form the basis for all FSC forest management standards. Based on these 10 principles, the FSC has developed further rules (called policies or standards) that define and explain specific requirements.
Some people already familiar with the Forest Stewardship Council processes do know that FSC is a living process, not an end to something, it is not simply about a “Green Tick” of approval. The formal principles and criteria provide the podium to engage in an open and transparent process.
FSC is not about a ‘silver bullet’ it is much more a serious game with obligations attached. I would describe the process as ‘ethical behaviour versus corruption’, removing sneaky, cunning conduct in society.
As long as companies (people) involved are about to respect and follow the principles (game rules).

FSC is not simply about ‘looking down’ on others (countries who may be even worse forestry practices), but it is about to ‘look up’ and forward, to search and aim for real, positive best practice examples of forest and catchment management addressing commercial, social and environmental needs.
The customers deserve to be fully aware to what they purchase if they make a decision for forest products (not just wood).

As long as the managers of Forestry Tasmania are unwilling to play the FSC game, they will have to live with the status and position they have created.

Posted by Frank Strie on 03/01/12 at 08:38 AM

Sir

In response to Pilko 32 I believe Bob Brown and Christine Milne could prevail on P.M.Julia Gillard to say to Premier Giddings , you enjoy G.S.T. revenue in excess of $1. your state is a medicant state and rely on the commonwealth for over 60% of your revenue.
In your own best interest instigate a royal commission .
Because of your present divisive state administration and Lennon and Bartlett before you , since Lennon rejected the Latham policy , which Howard had been considering and only reversed for political expediency., to win the 2004 election
The Senate report reveals the hand outs ,and only a royal commission will reveal how forestry workers and communities were dudded .?
If you continue with your policies there will not be a federal seat in the house of representatives held by Labor come the 2013 election.

A royal commission would reveal how Senator Abetz and the Liberals went only for political expediency.

Posted by Brian P.Khan on 03/01/12 at 08:51 AM

Regarding Peter Volker’s question #2:
Why is there an FSC Watch website?
The answer is: “The site is dedicated to encouraging scrutiny of the Forest Stewardship Council’s activities. By doing so, it aims to increase the integrity of the FSC’s forest certification scheme.”

That should help to explain what motivates the owners and authors.

Visitors to the FSC Watch website may quickly notice that most of the most controversial issues are about monoculture tree plantations and clearfelling = area rotation and the scale of the operations.

Peter Volker’s own professional track record and that of the IFA demonstrate well where he and his associates were most active over the last two to three decades - tree cropping.
Consequently as always time will tell where and what he and his mates will be going to do in future…
To be frank, the reason why since 1987 I was never motivated to apply to become a member in the IFA organisation is because of their demonstrated vision and consultations around simplistic tree cropping.

Posted by Frank Strie as TWFF President on 03/01/12 at 09:09 AM

#34 All depends. If those logs > 70cm are sawlog quality, they will be segregated as various sawlogs and sold as such. If only pulpwood quality, then they will be sent as pulpwood. It may also be possible to cut a short length off the butt end to reduce the diameter whereby peeler log is then available. The short butt piece will in all probability be pulpwood as its likely to be partially rotten coming from just above the stump. This is value adding and calls on the skills of the log grader to recognise possible better quality logs within an overall single log.

Our native timbers grow with great variability and no two logs are the same. Because of this each log is assessed/graded individually unlike plantation wood which is largely homogenous.

This 95% that gets bandied about with monotonous regularity - please explain the source and accuracy

Posted by mjf on 03/01/12 at 10:05 AM

The problems with the FSC have been noted before, but are worth repeating.

1. The FSC does not recognize sovereign regulatory authorities in Australia or NZ or elsewhere. Where plantation use of chemicals is concerned, for example, the FSC does not recognize the APVMA, which is Australia’s regulatory authority set up under Federal legislation, that is, by parliamentarians elected by the Australian electorate, including those on this site who rail against the AFS and PEFC.
2. The FSC is Eurocentric. Its accreditation body, that is, the body that approves FSC standards, is wholly owned by the FSC and operates out of the same building in Bonn which is the FSC’s headquarters.
As others have commented, that gives an entirely different meaning to the term ‘arms length’!
3. Where the FSC’s plantation use of chemicals is concerned, the criteria applied by the FSC are demonstrably pseudo-scientific. In fact it is junk science.
4. By comparison, the AFS is recognized by both the Australian Standards Organization and by the International Standards Organization, both completely independent of the forest industry in Australia. The ISO is recognized by governments everywhere.

These facts alone require that anything to do with the FSC should be treated with great caution. So far as I am concerned, the FSC falls little short of applying blackmailing in order to force Australian forestry organizations under their umbrella.

Note also that the PEFC certifies local and regional certification schemes that meet their criteria, does not try to over-ride national regulatory authorities, and has a far larger area under certification worldwide than does the FSC.

Of course, the FSC is the ‘darling’ of Green organizations and in fact was founded by them.

Dr Barry Tomkins

Posted by Dr Barry Tomkins on 03/01/12 at 02:29 PM

Oh yes, Barry Tomkins again:
... “Of course, the FSC is the ‘darling’ of Green organizations and in fact was founded by them.”

The truth is: Concerned business representatives, social groups and environmental organizations got together and established the Forest Stewardship Council.

Your repeated negative attitude does not help Tasmania or Australia’s forest based industry.
Aussieland is but a small player in the global timber and forest product market.
We have wasted enough time and money of more of the same old war games.
You work is well attached to the situation we find us in these days.

The International Plywood is just the latest example of Customers telling us what they require.

History of FSC
In the wake of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development in 1992
(Rio Summit), concerned business representatives, social groups and environmental organizations got together and established the Forest Stewardship Council. Its purpose is to improve forest management worldwide.

What began in as not much more than an innovative idea has turned into the leading model for environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial and economically viable forest stewardship. Today, FSC is the only internationally recognized standard setting organization for responsible forest management supported by the corporate sector as well as environmental organizations and social groups.

This is how it all began:
1990
First meeting of a group of timber users, traders and representatives of environmental and human-rights organizations in California, USA. This varied group of people had in common that all had identified the need for a system that could credibly identify well-managed forests as source of responsibly produced forest products.

At this meeting it was agreed that this system would be based on a global consensus of what good forest management means. The name “Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)” was already coined at this meeting.

1990-1993
Intensive consultation processes in ten countries find support for a worldwide certification and accreditation system covering all forest types independent of ownership or geographic location and including natural forests as well as plantations.

“This just goes to show that FSC has all the hall marks of graft and corruption that the eNGOs constantly complain about.”

You obviously haven’t kept up with the unfolding SoP and IGA story, otherwise you would know that the eNGOs are just as corrupt.

“Nothing can replace democratically elected governments, with good legislation and attention to good forest practices on the ground.”

It would be great if that happened in Tasmania, Mr Volker.

Re #38
“Our native timbers grow with great variability and no two logs are the same.”

Same thing can be said for every tree on the planet.

“This 95% that gets bandied about with monotonous regularity - please explain the source and accuracy”

None of your lot ever dispute it.

Posted by Russell Langfield on 03/01/12 at 07:35 PM

Re #40: Frank Strie - why don’t you name the organizations that ‘got together’ to establish the FSC? They included Greenpeace, WWF etc did they not? And weren’t these Green organizations the prime movers? You avoid such detail - why?

You do not attempt to answer the specific criticisms - that the FSC does not recognize sovereign regulatory authorities, that its criteria on chemicals are pseudo-scientific, that its accreditation body is wholly owned by the FSC, that this body operates out of the same building as the FSC, that the FSC is Euro-centric.

Or that it uses dubious, amoral methods to achieve its ends.

No point in trying to change the argument to suit your beliefs, Frank. That approach just doesn’t wash.

Dr Barry Tomkins

Posted by Dr Barry Tomkins on 03/01/12 at 07:46 PM

If FT is going to survive in the 21st century it will have to change its ways and make a real effort to gain FSC accreditation so as to allow future wood product sales into the international market.

Mr Gordon it is not that hard, or would you prefer to go down with the sinking woodchip ship. I suggest that without FSC, your GBE will slip silently below the waves without trace.

Certification may well require the removal of the dead wood at the top, a generation of so called Foresters and their accolytes. Managers who have been both part of and latterly controllers of the woodchip, slash and burn industry that has emerged under their watch since their days at the ANU.

These men have,particularly in recent times, been in the thrall of their customers,surrendering their responsibility to the people’s forests by allowing firms such as Gunns to dictate matters of certification, strategy and contracts all to the detriment of the public purse.

The apologists for them and this industry do it no service defending the indefensible.

I say again “No FSC No Sales No Gunns” or for that matter without a change of policy “No FT”.

Posted by john hawkins on 03/01/12 at 09:01 PM

#34. Still waiting….........

#41. ‘Your lot’ - that’s gold.

I dispute it so put up or shut up. You’ll disappear again now that some substantiation is required. Or maybe you can spot another paraphrasing opportunity ... ?

Posted by mjf on 03/01/12 at 09:05 PM

#39 Dr Barry Tomkins: A very interesting insight into FSC. I am looking foward to hearing more about it so I can solve the mysteries of why native forests harvesting in Tasmania are being targeted by the Greens.
Does this mean that Tasmanian Blackwood and Tas Oak furniture from sawlogs harvested from either Old Growth native forest or older age regrowth is next on the activists list to tittle tattle to the International buyers because it is not FSC endorsed therefore it is derived from poorly managed forests by FT?
I have the feeling that under the rules of FSC all native forest harvesting would eventually have to cease not just the 572,000 ha the conservationists want immediately.
I suspect that there is some long term trickery attached to FSC in Australia. You bettcha?

Posted by Robin Halton on 03/01/12 at 09:30 PM

e books and consumer attitudes may have combined here to hasten change. Regardless of the opinion of industry that it has a high standard not using the widely accepted FSC label will leave any timber industry so foolish as to remain in the past right there going broke rather than for broke.

Posted by phill Parsons on 04/01/12 at 05:36 AM

Mjf, I will answer the question re woodchip quantities.
The amount of woodchip harvested from State Forests varied from 73.69% in 2009/10 to a maximum figure of 83.31% in 2001/2002 year.
Figures are from FT annual reports.
Woodchip was between 162.68 and 185.80 tonnes per ha.
The figure of 95% woodchip is actually a figure derived from Forest Practices Plans for some coupes only. Typically old growth coupes. The figures for individual coupes are difficult to verify to outsiders as a purchased FPP has the tonnages blacked out.
Thankyou for the answers to the questions on growth rates it is good to see a reasoned debate on TT .

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 04/01/12 at 05:46 AM

Dr Barry Tomkins 42. And what about the birth of Forestry Tasmania? We know the forests were ‘acquired’ in a process involving the partial genocide of an entire race. They were subsequently worked using convict slave labor. Maybe you can enlighten us more Barry?

Posted by Karl Stevens on 04/01/12 at 07:19 AM

Mjf. I regret I have not answered your questions earlier but I do not sit at the computer all the time.
As you are so well connected with the industry perhaps you could supply accurate figures.
Could you also confirm that these supposedly reserved forests would still be being felled if not driven by the Ta Aan commitment.
I feel saw logs have no bearing on this situation.

Posted by J A Stevenson on 04/01/12 at 07:47 AM

Re #42 Barry T. and #45 Robin H.
The FSC is an example of how network governance can create change in industry and encourage organizations to improve the sustainability of the forestry industry.
The FSC governance network brings together private companies, organizations and civil society in a non-hierarchical fashion, to voluntarily address certain goals.
According to governance network theory, actors in the network are dependent on each other and collaborate to reach specific goals, through exchanging information or resources.
The FSC governance system has checks at local, national and international levels which mean the FSC has advantages over existing governmental arrangements, as it includes interests regardless of their geographical location.
The FSC uses governance networks because they increase the quality of environmental goals due to knowledge sharing, and coordination is improved through a shared perception of what the goals entail. Therefore, governance networks improve the effectiveness of the policy outcomes as well as the policy process.
Moreover, knowledge sharing and collaboration enables the FSC network to deal with complex and interrelated issues.
==================================
For detailed information about FSC you may like to contact Fred Gale, Senior Lecturer at University of Tasmania

Summary
Fred Gale (BA, MA, PhD) is Senior Lecturer, School of Government, University of Tasmania. His research interests are national and global environmental governance focussing on the political economy of forestry.
Dr Gale is the author of THE TROPICAL TIMBER TRADE REGIME (Palgrave Macmillan 1998) and SETTING THE STANDARD (UBC Press 2008).
He has edited two books: NATURE PRODUCTION POWER (Edward Elgar 2000) and CONFRONTING SUSTAINABILITY (Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Studies Press, Yale University).
Dr Gale has just published two new books, one comparing state responses to the Forest Stewardship Council and Marine Stewardship Council (GLOBAL COMMODITY GOVERNANCE, Palgrave Macmillan, 2011); and another edited volume that examines the environmental assessment of Gunns proposed pulp mill (PULP FRICTION IN TASMANIA, Pencil Pine Press, 2011).
For all media enquiries, please contact:
03 6226 2124

This may help everyone to get the facts right.
I am not interested in gutter snipe exchanges, Australia and Tasmania have lost years of valuable resources because the two opposing poles behave like religious groups.
TWFF as a founding member group of FSC Australia is about responsible forest management and catchment restoration management.
We would be happy to assist our three political parties represented in the state and federal parliaments to lift the horizon of the forest strategy for the 21st century and future generations.

As stated previously, the two Universities in Australia have almost run out of students in forestry. I wonder how many foresters have moved here in the last two decades or so.
You may consider change in attitude to bring about a change in direction.
Commercial restoration management is the future, I could go on, but you may like to visit our website instead:http://www.twff.org.au

Posted by Frank Strie on 04/01/12 at 08:13 AM

#47. Good grief. None of your statistics demonstrate or verify this fictional figure of 95%. May I point out a number of falsehoods in your case ?

i) Quoting recorded chip volumes of 162.68 and 185.80 tonnes/ha means nothing without the corresponding sawlog yields to calculate the proportional percentages recovered

ii) Forest Practices Plans have not for a number of years included expected log volume data . Long ago when that information was provided it was an anticipated or assessed volume provided by the FPO and not actual recovered volumes. Now you would like to claim these proposed numbers across a limited range of coupes should be seen as accurate and representative for all operations ?

iii) Purchased FPP’s do not have the tonnages blacked out as they are not included in the first place. There would be very few of these older style FPP’s still in existence now.

iv) You demonstrate no apparent consideration for recovered percentages off private property operations by just referencing FT Annual Reports.

v) If I assume your numbers for woodchip recovery ranging from 73.69% in 2009/10 to a maximum figure of 83.31% in 2001/2002 year are correct, then the fabled 95% is still well outside the range.

Based on your argument, the 95% is a crock having being derived from a conglomeration of old and obsolete FPP’s which once included anticipated volumes but not actuals, a limited number of FT Annual Reports and no research of private property volume records.

It seems I was giving you a little too much credit Pete, not that long ago. I apologise for that misjudgement.

#49. It is not for me to provide your evidence. If you want to argue a point, then do the hard yards by verifying your own discussion points. Clearly though this will not be possible with the 95% now that we know the origins.

Posted by mjf on 04/01/12 at 12:52 PM

According to george Harris, 40% of all saw logs is also chipped as residue.

In 1973 the Tasmanian Statistician noted that Tasmania had 217 sawmills, and wood chips had risen to 2,190,000 tonnes pa.

In the 1983 Year Book when such matters were still published as a matter of Public Interest the Tasmanian Statistician notes woodchip exports at:

Triabunna 600,000 tonnes pa.
Long Reach 711,000 tonnes pa.
but gives no overall total why? It should be noted that the number of Sawmills employing 4 people or more had fallen to 80.

By 1993 sawmills are not listed and the Government Statistician has been well and truly nobbled:
20,000 employees in Forestry sector,
Woodchips declining from 4,260,000 tonnes in 1980,to 3,565,800 tonnes in 1993.

Rare references in the Year books after this date make no sense.

Now mjf a few Questions of the Guru:

1 How many sawmills employing 4 people or more are currently operating in Tasmania in 2012?
2 How many tonnes of woodchips were exported in 2009-10?
3 How many people are now employed in Tasmanian Timber industry?

Remember that Erich Abetz when Minister of Forests stated that only the left overs from Native Forest logging and the waste from sawmills went into woodchips.

Posted by john hawkins on 04/01/12 at 02:05 PM

January 4 2011. Gunns share price 11 cents.

Posted by Karl Stevens on 04/01/12 at 04:06 PM

Mjf it appears that you are not happy that I am agreeing with you on the mythical 95% woodchip.
I have seen old FPP’s with projected figures in that range and have used FT figures over 9 years to show that at least from State Forests the figures are not that high.
Private land is another story and the figures are not as easy to get. I do have a business to run and can’t spend all day chasing information.
If you want sawlog figures then in 2001/2 the figure was 32.6 cubic metres per ha sawlog and veneer with 162.68 tonnes of pulpwood per ha.
In 2009/10 the figure was 64.35 cubic metres per ha of sawlog and veneer with 180.28 tonnes per ha pulpwood.
Sorry that you don’t like me agreeing with you, I will try not to next time.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 04/01/12 at 04:29 PM

#51 mjf: “Forest Practices Plans have not for a number of years included expected log volume data . Long ago when that information was provided it was an anticipated or assessed volume provided by the FPO and not actual recovered volumes.”

Hello “Agro Person” whoever you are, desperate language and expressions!
You have just confirmed again how dodgy and fishy the whole management planning is going.
How can anyone responsible for this essential data pre and post / brutto & netto numbers run a commercially responsible business for generations to come?
Is this what you learned in your forestry training and professional education?
On that point alone is the Tasmanian industry future doomed to fail.
If you had any idea how proper data collection, storage and use is assisting short, medium and long term planning in many countries we competing against, you would not shout so aggressive from your high horse like position.
It is a real shame that such data is not available to any stakeholder in this country.
Someone in Canberra needs to pull the plug on this third world flight!
We will hear the poor excuses as soon as an international delegation of real forest managers start searching the books in Melville Street.
Time will tell.

Posted by Frank Strie, FWM on 04/01/12 at 05:18 PM

I’ve never believed in the 95%, but between 73% and 83% is far too high. We should be aiming to reduce this percentage to zero.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 04/01/12 at 06:30 PM

mjf, Peter Volker, Robin et al.

I’m not much interested in the machinations of who buys logs of what size and from whom. I’m an economist. As such, I get excited when corporations find new and interesting ways of turning inputs into something more valuable.

What bothers me are the following facts:

1. FEA is broke. Gone, forever.
2. Gunns closed today at 11 cents, despite a balance sheet showing some $800 million worth of freehold land, planted with various species of gum trees.
3. Forestry Tasmania, otherwise known as a sheltered workshop for Labor cronies, couldn’t make a profit even if it were gifted the entirety of Tasmania’s forests. Oh, I forgot, it was.
4. The backbone of the plantation industry is dead. Not a single MIS promoter is offering plantation investments in Tasmanian anymore. This contrasts with $350 million in 2004/05.
5. Te Ann would be totally unviable were in not for public grants and subsidies. Happy to provide the numbers on request.
6. On my numbers, the remaining handful of employees in the native forest sector contribute a net loss to State Final Demand.
7. The total contribution of the much-vaunted `special timbers industry’ is a net loss to the State of around $250 million per annum.

I could continue, but I have trees to hug.

The few hardcore pro-loggers with half an ounce of intelligence will soon realise the world has changed, scrapping resources at a loss is not sustainable, and anyway, who really wants to go to work wearing a fluoro vest?

It’s not hard to prove that ceasing native forest logging, ending subsidies to the timber industry and focusing on the future is a better option than that offered by the intellectually challenged members of Willie Hodgman’s cheer squad.

Love Jarvie.

Posted by Jarvis Cocker on 04/01/12 at 07:17 PM

In terms of injecting some cold hard realities into any debate on the current value of the logging industry to Tasmania, remember these comments by Graeme Wells from the School of Economics and Finance at UTAS?
They can be found here..http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Discussion_paper_2010-01.pdf

......“Assessment of the mill was accompanied by a drumbeat of overblown claims as to the
importance of forestry in the Tasmanian economy. Lobbyists such as the Construction, Manufacturing, Forestry and Engineering Union (CMFEU) and Timber Communities Tasmania, a lobby group largely funded by the forestry industry, lost no opportunity to argue that forestry underpinned growth in the Tasmanian economy while
simultaneously stressing the need for government handouts to sustain further growth.
Given their constituency, such behaviour is understandable and appears to have been
successful. In 2007, for example, 24% of survey respondents thought that forestry had
‘made the greatest contribution to the growth of Tasmania’s economy in the last few
years’ – second only in importance to tourism.5 It is hard to reconcile this response
with the reality that Tasmanian woodchip exports had declined since 2000, and forest
contractors had, in 2007, asked the Commonwealth for a $93m package to help them
exit the industry.6
While it might be difficult for the general public to discount repeated but erroneous
claims, more is expected from the responsible ministers. But Bryan Green, then
Minister for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources, was infected by the lobbyists’
enthusiasm for forestry and wood products industry. For example, in his submission to
the Australian Government’s review of taxation treatment of plantation forestry, he
claimed that ‘these industries contribute ... 23% of Gross State Product ... and directly
employ around 10,700 people (1 in 13 workforce participants)’.7
These claims, which appear to have been sourced from a CFMEU website, were wildly
inflated. Schirmer (2008) estimated employment in the forestry and wood products
industry to have been 6300 in 2005-06 which, given the Tasmanian workforce of
222,000 persons, is 2.9% of the total. That is, the industry employed one in 35
workers, not one in 13 as claimed by Minister Green. Data on value added in the
forestry and wood products industry are not compiled by the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, but even in the unlikely event that workers in the industry were twice as
productive as the Tasmanian average, their contribution to Gross State Product would
have been 5.8%, not 23% as claimed by Minister Green”........

Posted by Pilko on 04/01/12 at 09:35 PM

Another take on the amount of woodchip taken from our forests, it is not 95% of what is removed that goes to woodchip.
The real figure from State Forests is only between 73% and 83% depending on the year.
BUT
There is an enormous amount of waste left to burn.
In 2008 the forest industry was responsible for burning 7.2 million tonnes of waste in Tasmania.
That increases the lack of sustainability that the industry can claim in Tasmania and also would make FSC certification much harder.

extract from DPIPWE and EPA report
A preliminary reassesment of relative contribution of PM10 particle pollution from Forest Industry Burns and Domestic Wood Heating to the Tasmanian Airshed 2008.

Air Section, Scientific and Technical Branch, Environment Division,Department of Primary Industry, Parks, Water and Environment
Supporting the Environment Protection Authority

The Forest Practices Authority reported that a total of 579 forest industry burns took place
between April and June 2008 (Chuter, 2008), covering an area of 31,000 ha. Of these burns,
slightly less than 18,000 ha were considered to be ‘heavy-fuel’ burns, with the remainder
being ‘light’ or ‘very light’ fuel burns. According to a study carried out in a ‘wet’ eucalyptus
obliqua forest in southern Tasmania, ‘heavy-fuel’ burns consume around 400 tonnes per
hectare of logging residue (Slijepcevic, 2001). If this is taken as being representative of
heavy fuel loads throughout the state, the 18,000 ha of ‘heavy fuel’ burns conducted by the
Tasmanian forest industry in 2008 can be estimated to have consumed approximately 7.2
million tonnes of wood.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 05/01/12 at 05:14 AM

mjf. 95%. 75% really makes no difference.
The amount of locked up carbon released, either immediately in burn off’s or in pulpwood, which soon joins that which was burnt, contributes to global warming for no benefit to anyone.
Who makes the profit? From every viewpoint it is a loss loss situation.
The loads of timber being carried are all of straight, of equal length. They do not grow that way. Bent and short lengths are discarded and left on site to be burnt,
What is the overall total profit per tonne of the pulpwood removed, it obviously does not cover FT’s costs.
You did not comment on my “” Could you also confirm that these supposedly reserved forests would still being felled if not driven by the Ta Aan commitment.”” Why not?

Posted by J A Stevenson on 05/01/12 at 07:28 AM

#56 Perhaps Frank you would like to explain to one and all how one assesses Tasmanian native forest and predicts exactly what is recovered. You may be good but you’re not that good. I think I know who’s atop the high horse.

Lets not confuse this issue with forestry training and professional education. At the end of the day, this is not an exact science when assessing standing trees based on visual features and stocking while the internal contents is still a relative unknown. No amount of training will deliver a consistent 100% prediction rate but you may harbour the secret, hopefully.

Dodgy and fishy ? I think if every business could get to within say, 20% of predicted vs actuals then that would be a satisfactory outcome.

Posted by mjf on 05/01/12 at 01:14 PM

#57. On what studies and modelling do you base your statement that between 73% and 83% recovery of pulpwood is too high ?

#60 So now the 95% might be pulpwood removed plus residue left behind ? The alleged 400 tonnes/ha -that would be so called merchantible timber or are we including all slash and scrub species which is otherwise unsaleable ?

Would you not agree the 7.2 mill tonnes would have been better off being fed through a biofuel boiler to produce something useful ?

#61. So 95% or 75% makes little difference now. Self proclaimed experts like yourself have been happily agreeing that native forest harvesting in Tasmania turns 95% of the crop into pulpwood.

That has now been proven to be green poppycock, rubbish you were more than happy to help peddle. Now you want to dilute your position with a dismissive “makes no difference”. From the completed numbers provided by #55, we now see the actual sawlog/veneer proportions for the two years provided are 16% (2001/2) and 26%(2009/10).

By deduction that must leave the residual percentages of pulpwood as 84% and 74% respectively. End of story, myth busted.

While #57 would like to reduce the pulpwood proportion to zero, I don’t think that’s realistic unless of course pulpwood is replaced altogether by another product such as biofuel.

Re the Ta Ann committment your question is irrelevant. FT have stated they need to keep harvesting certain coupes to meet customer contracts. Ta Ann is just one of several contracted customers therefore your question should read - “Could you also confirm that these supposedly reserved forests would still being felled if not driven by existing customer committments ?” .

The answer then would clearly be no because there would be no customers to supply.

“The loads of timber being carried are all of straight, of equal length. They do not grow that way. Bent and short lengths are discarded and left on site to be burnt” - groan. Where to start with this ? I’m at a loss to understand how all the loads of timber carried are straight and of equal length if not growing that way. I think maybe you got a bit muddled there.

Posted by mjf on 05/01/12 at 11:53 PM

Mjf at #60 “So now the 95% might be pulpwood removed plus residue left behind ? The alleged 400 tonnes/ha -that would be so called merchantible timber or are we including all slash and scrub species which is otherwise unsaleable ?”

MJF I have no idea of the make up of the 95% figure like I said it appears to be a figure that is derived from seeing the projected figures of pulpwood that used to be given on FPP’s. Like I have already said that figure does not apply state wide. It is easy to see how a figure could be relayed from person to person and become an urban myth without real basis in fact.

Of course the DPIPWE and EPA figure of 7.2 million tonnes would include all logging waste, which from what I have seen does include some merchantible timber (like partial loads not removed), species not used (such as A.dealbata) and logging slash.

“Would you not agree the 7.2 mill tonnes would have been better off being fed through a biofuel boiler to produce something useful ?”

I would rather see the forests logged for sawlog only on a single stem extraction model. From what I have read the best way to deal with slash would be to use Pyrolisis to convert the waste into Bio Char and using the gas to run a turbine to produce power or vehicle fuel. The use of Bio mass as a fuel has many variables that need to be taken into account such as the fossil fuel inputs and transport costs.
Plant that converts Biomass to fuels or power would be better as small units located near the forest or need a rail network to transport the waste out efficiently.

It is an area that needs much modelling, not an issue for quick decisions.

Posted by Pete Godfrey on 06/01/12 at 06:03 AM

Mjf, what a mammoth figure would be the amount of Tasmanian forest growth that has been incinerated over say the past 20 years?

Yet the likes of Forestry Tasmania’s zealots, along with that of their supposed Worlds Best Practices, then consider all the cleverly discovered collective input originating from their group of scientific apostles for that same period of 20 years, what has changed?

Still to this very day the mass burning of so much forest product continues to add to the ginormous tonnages, the millions and millions of tonnes of Forest product, so ignorantly sent up in smoke is still part of Forestry Tasmania’s World’s Best Practices.

Clearly this (WBP) is a false term brought into being from some tea-lady or groundsman employed by Forestry Tasmania, when in reality its practices are still being shrouded by this government and its strict restrictive accesses to freedom of information (so seldom is its entirety allowed,) to the many and varied operations of this favoured but generally delinquent failing GBE?

The error of the ways of Clear-felling our Native Forests, (whatever be the known references best to describe the age and or antiquity of these Native Forests,) in denuding all of that ground of which these various forests once thrived upon, are still in use to this very day.

So when did the Forestry Tasmania begin their (WBP) taunt to the world around us by the fact that their today methodologies show that not a dicky bird has altered from their former practices of 20 year ago?

Forestry Tasmania today is a true Shakespearian Farce, tis nothing more than a group of fixed-minded shamming performers ever announcing themselves as an important GBE, yet not ably providing any true testament to their vital delivery of revenues to the Tasmanian Treasury?

Posted by William Boeder on 06/01/12 at 12:34 PM

#50 Frank so FSC global “chain of custody” control is the main operational objective of this self promoting organisation who is using muscle and bribery to control of the movement of forest products across the globe!
Bad mouthing by Tasmanian Green influence was the initial cause of Ta Ann losing its contract to supply laminated plywood for the London Olympic Stadium.
The wastral movement that you are bragging about has no place in Tasmania!
Frank you were heavily involved in the Warra trials literally wasting FT’s time, patience and limited money in order to develop a new silvicultural system of harvesting and regeneration against the odds of nature!
Do you honestly think that such a system would work in the real world! It would seem to me that going against the “wildfire” reliance of eucalypt silviculture, your support has fatal flaws!
It may seem that you see this as a sort of FSC approved system of native species forestry that you have been self promoting! True or false Frank!
Perhaps you should look further at the rat baggery and distortions of certified Global FSC when applied to a UK based Coy. New Forests, the displacement of 25,000 Ugandans as claimed by OXFAM.
Be prepared I will have more to say during my next review!

Posted by Robin Halton on 07/01/12 at 07:31 AM

mjf. Could you name any one of these customers other than Ta Ann’s veneer contract with FT for the supply of saw logs which could not be supplied from other sources.
Ta Aan is the only customer I have heard mentioned.
Where do these other saw millers operate? Most larger independent saw millers were bought out by Gunns and then closed down, leaving very few mills capable of handling larger timbers.
I repeat, The only customer mentioned as the reason that these supposedly reserved forests were being felled was the Ta Aan commitment.
It is truly amazing that the Tasmanian trees grow to the exact bolster lengths required, perfectly straight.

Posted by J A Stevenson on 07/01/12 at 09:54 AM

#64 Considerable modelling has already been undertaken on various scenarios but my point is if clearfelling continues to be necessary for resons not being discussed here, then disposal of the non-merchantible leftovers i.e. slash and scrub is still a necessity to at least expose mineral soil for seeding purposes. At this point of the process alternative uses should be found for this remaining material whether its biochar, biofuel or is mulched for garden landscaping etc.

#65 I don’t seriously think WBP was coined by the tealady however a hilarious spectacle that might seem to you. I cannot agree with your generally disparaging remarks and insults aimed at FT and can only conclude I see and deal with a completely alternate organisation to you.

Posted by mjf on 07/01/12 at 11:36 AM

#67. I don’t believe it appropriate to name FT other customers in this forum. Suffice to say there are a range of sawmillers involved around the state as well as export customers (on and off).

Most independents hardwood mills were bought by Gunns at various times, all closed down and on sold if you recall. Most are re-emerging as ongoing hardwood mills under new ownership. I doubt anyone would have purchased these facilities without securing a resource.

Any static registered sawmill in Tasmania has the physical capacity to process whatever size log FT can throw up.

Re your last comment, please pay a little attention next time and you will see logs of various lengths on a load, they are not all bolster length and are not perfectly straight either. Longer ones on the outside with shorter ones inside the load. Or may be all shorts depending on the trailer used. You really must try be more observant (and accurate).

Posted by mjf on 07/01/12 at 08:10 PM

#69 mjf What are your thoughts on FSC accreditation for future wood products to sourced from Tasmania.
Perhaps Tasmania has to move with the times?

Posted by Robin Halton on 08/01/12 at 10:39 AM

#63, How can anyone justify the harvesting of trees to produce short-term consumable products?

Posted by Tim Thorne on 08/01/12 at 11:15 AM

Just think about it!
... there have been many who have wished only to fill their pockets and move on, leaving their ecological debts to be paid by somebody else’s children.

But by this time, the era of cut-and-run economics ought to be finished. Such an economy cannot be rationally defended or even apologized for. The proofs of its immense folly, heartlessness, and destructiveness are everywhere. Its failure as a way of dealing with the natural world and human society can no longer be sanely denied.
================================================

... But however valuable our forests may be now, they are nothing like so valuable as they can become. If we use the young forests we have now in the best way and if we properly care for them, they will continue to increase in board footage, in heath, and in beauty for several more human generations. But already we are running into problems that can severely limit the value and usefulness of this resource to our people, because we have neglected to learn to practice good forest stewardship.

Moreover, we have never understood that the only appropriate human response to a diversified forest ecosystem is a diversified local forest economy. We have failed so far to imagine and put in place some sort of small-scale, locally owned logging and wood-products industries that would be the best guarantors of the long-term good use and good care of our forests. At present, it is estimated that up to 70 percent of the timber production of our forests leaves the state as logs or as raw lumber.

Lest you think that the situation and the problems I have outlined are of interest only to “tree huggers,” let me remind you mat during most of the history of our state, our rural landscapes and our rural communities have been in bondage to an economic colonialism that has exploited and misused both land and people. This exploitation has tended to become more severe with the growth of industrial technology. ...
In the past we have too often merely trusted that the corporate economy or the government would dispose of natural resources in a way that would be best for the land and the people. ...

To put the bounty and the health of our land, our only commonwealth, into the hands of people who do not live on it and share its fate will always be an error. For whatever determines the fortune of the land determines also the fortune of the people. If the history of Kentucky teaches anything, it teaches that. ...

Re #71: Really, Tim? Intensively grown Radiata pine provides 85% of the timber framing for new Australian houses! So it is OK to grow it but not utilize it?

Dr Barry Tomkins

Posted by Dr Barry Tomkins on 08/01/12 at 05:32 PM

Re #73: I referred specifically to short-term consumables, such as cardboard packaging, where the carbon is released into the environment within a few years. I would hope the P radiata framework of houses lasts a good deal longer than that.

I repeat my question. I would love to have the justification explained.

Posted by Tim Thorne on 08/01/12 at 08:37 PM

#72 Nice article Frank.

I currently live in France and see this practice of local forestry daily. Despite living on the edge of the very large Gresigne National Forest, it is mostly under conservation with many small pockets of locally managed and community-owned forests.

The community forests emphasize the multiple uses of that forest and there are riding tracks, walks, pic-nic areas, firewood collection areas and small scale timber extraction. There are strong rules concerning the preservation of wildlife and ecosystem variety, even down to the collection wild of mushrooms, which must only be collected as mature specimens and must be cut off mid-stem rather than pulled and carried in a wicker container to allow the spores to escape.

The only clear-felling activity is in previously planted small - and I emphasise ‘small’ - private plantations with only selective logging within the main forest areas. The impact of this is difficult to even see where it took place after the event.

In France, the total area of forested land is increasing and forests cover a large part of France. They have realised that this is an essential to human survival and are actioning this, unlike Tasmania.

And strangely enough, this is a profitable enterprise and no drain on the public purse.

Posted by Barnaby Drake on 08/01/12 at 10:03 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.